Friday, June 28, 2013

At the end of June 2013, NASA will launch its newest mission to watch
the sun: the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph, or IRIS. IRIS will
show the lowest levels of the sun's atmosphere, the interface region, in
more detail than has even been observed before. This will help
scientists understand how the energy dancing through this area helps
power the sun's million-degree upper atmosphere, the corona, as well as
how this energy powers the solar wind constantly streaming off the sun
to fill the entire solar system.

Data visualizations courtesy of Mats Carlsson and Viggo Hansteen, University of Oslo, Norway

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

This graphic shows the IRIS observatory with the solar arrays removed.
The orange section to the left is the spacecraft bus which includes the
spacecraft support structure, the command and data handling system,
power distribution system, reaction wheels, X- and S-Band communications
systems, Li-Ion battery, magnetic torque rods, and electronics for the
sun sensors. The section to the right of the spacecraft includes the
instrument optics package and electronics, several components of the
attitude control system, and the solar arrays. The instrument includes a
20cm telescope optimized for solar observations which feeds a 5 channel
imaging spectrograph. The green section is the telescope assembly, the
light blue section is the spectrograph, and the dark blue box is the
separate instrument electronics box.
Credit: LMSAL, LM ATC

NASA is getting ready to launch a new mission, a mission to observe a largely unexplored region of the solar atmosphere that powers its dynamic million-degree outer atmosphere and drives the solar wind.
In late June 2013, the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph, or IRIS, will launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. IRIS will advance our understanding of the interface region, a region in the lower atmosphere of the sun where most of the sun's ultraviolet emissions are generated. Such emissions impact the near-Earth space environment and Earth's climate. See:IRIS: Studying the Energy Flow that Powers the Solar Atmosphere

Thursday, June 20, 2013

I think one needs to draw a distinction here with regard to what consciousness is able to access, given the understanding that information already exists. That becoming aware of it, as part and parcel of something larger then ourselves.....as in the conscious state access versus the unconscious ability and doorway too.

Anyway, I presented the Dialogues of Plato and the Plays of William Shakespeare as forums in which characters real or imagined, help to move forward the reader under "ideological progressions," as if, dealing with this inductive/ deductive realization of information and probable outcomes once given the scenarios which are displayed for the mind to entertainUnderstanding our Angels and Daemons

While one gets to the point of what is self evident, and lays the point or question as a point of gaining access to that information, how does one see this conscious intent, as it gains access to levels of perception becoming fully aware of "other entities(Gateway Program)," versus, access to information in terms of the collective unconscious? Everything is information, and information, is not lost.

Elizabeth Gilbert muses on the impossible things we expect from artists and geniuses -- and shares the radical idea that, instead of the rare person "being" a genius, all of us "have" a genius. It's a funny, personal and surprisingly moving talk.

The question arises in my mind with regard to seeing these entities as being apart from oneself(Daemon) not Demon:) and gaining access to the same information exhibited in recognition of this higher intelligence that already exists in us all?? Are you aware of the content of "deep play?"

The words daemon, dæmon, are Latinized spellings of the Greek δαίμων (daimôn),[1] used purposely today to distinguish the daemons of Ancient Greek religion, good or malevolent "supernatural beings between mortals and gods, such as inferior divinities and ghosts of dead heroes" (see Plato's Symposium), from the Judeo-Christian usage demon, a malignant spirit that can seduce, afflict, or possess humans See:Daemon (mythology)

I try to elaborate more here. So it was more that we loose something of ourselves when we see the nature of "an entity" as something apart from ourselves as we consciously push the boundaries of information access. I give two examples with regard too, Robert Pirsig and John Nash. More the fear then, that such genius is associated with illness and that with this creative spark, and assumed so?

This understanding is a foundational perspective that Socrates may have shared as he intently listened to people. He was looking for this ability of people to access and use this aspect of them self. To express aspect of this higher intelligence? Historically then, the understanding and development of the Socratic foundations? Here my view may be skewed by what is mythical as Gilbert portrays of Socratic as to "a being" inside of us, while I intend to show a development of knowledge pursue.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Born in England in 1923, Freeman Dyson moved to Cornell University after graduating from Cambridge University with a BA in Mathematics. He subsequently became a professor and worked on nuclear reactors, solid state physics, ferromagnetism, astrophysics and biology. He has published several books and, among other honours, has been awarded the Heineman Prize and the Royal Society's Hughes Medal. See:98-Summer school at Les Houches

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal, codified or explicit knowledge)
is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another
person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. For example,
stating to someone that London is in the United Kingdom is a piece of
explicit knowledge that can be written down, transmitted, and understood
by a recipient. However, the ability to speak a language, use algebra,[1]
or design and use complex equipment requires all sorts of knowledge
that is not always known explicitly, even by expert practitioners, and
which is difficult or impossible to explicitly transfer to other users.
While tacit knowledge appears to be simple, it has far reaching consequences and is not widely understood.

Contents

Definition

The term “tacit knowing” or “tacit knowledge” was first introduced into philosophy by Michael Polanyi in 1958 in his magnum opus Personal Knowledge. He famously introduces the idea in his later work The Tacit Dimension with the assertion that “we can know more than we can tell.”.[2]
According to him, not only is the knowledge that cannot be adequately
articulated by verbal means, but also all knowledge is rooted in tacit
knowledge in the strong sense of that term.
With tacit knowledge, people are not often aware of the knowledge
they possess or how it can be valuable to others. Effective transfer of
tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact, regular
interaction [3]
and trust. This kind of knowledge can only be revealed through practice
in a particular context and transmitted through social networks.[4] To some extent it is "captured" when the knowledge holder joins a network or a community of practice.[5]
Some examples of daily activities and tacit knowledge are: riding a
bike, playing the piano, driving a car, and hitting a nail with a
hammer.[6]
The formal knowledge of how to ride a bicycle is that in order to
balance, if the bike falls to the left, one steers to the left. To turn
right the rider first steers to the left, and then when the bike falls
right, the rider steers to the right.[7]
You may know explicitly how turning of the handle bars or steering
wheel change the direction of a bike or car, but you cannot
simultaneously focus on this and at the same time orientate yourself in
traffic.
Similarly, you may know explicitly how to hold the handle of a
hammer, but you cannot simultaneously focus on the handle and hit the
nail correctly with the hammer. The master pianist can perform
brilliantly, but if he begins to concentrate on the movements of his
fingers instead of the music, he will not be able to play as a master.
Knowing the explicit knowledge, however, is no help in riding a bicycle,
doesn’t help in performing well in the tasks since few people are aware
of it when performing and few riders are in fact aware of this.
Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. Although it is that which is
used by all people, it is not necessarily able to be easily articulated.
It consists of beliefs, ideals, values, schemata and mental models
which are deeply ingrained in us and which we often take for granted.
While difficult to articulate, this cognitive dimension of tacit
knowledge shapes the way we perceive the world.
In the field of knowledge management, the concept of tacit knowledge
refers to a knowledge possessed only by an individual and difficult to
communicate to others via words and symbols. Therefore, an individual
can acquire tacit knowledge without language. Apprentices, for example,
work with their mentors and learn craftsmanship not through language but
by observation, imitation, and practice.
The key to acquiring tacit knowledge is experience. Without some form
of shared experience, it is extremely difficult for people to share
each other's thinking processes[8]
Tacit knowledge has been described as “know-how” - as opposed to
“know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking)[citation needed].
It involves learning and skill but not in a way that can be written
down. On this account knowing-how or embodied knowledge is
characteristic of the expert, who acts, makes judgments, and so forth
without explicitly reflecting on the principles or rules involved. The
expert works without having a theory of his or her work; he or she just
performs skillfully without deliberation or focused attention [9]
Tacit knowledge vs. Explicit knowledge:[10]
Although it is possible to distinguish conceptually between explicit
and tacit knowledge, they are not separate and discrete in practice. The
interaction between these two modes of knowing is vital for the
creation of new knowledge.[11]

Differences with explicit knowledge

Tacit knowledge can be distinguished from explicit knowledge in three major areas:

Codifiability and mechanism of transferring knowledge: while
explicit knowledge can be codified, and easily transferred without the
knowing subject, tacit knowledge is intuitive and unarticulated
knowledge cannot be communicated, understood or used without the
‘knowing subject’. Unlike the transfer of explicit knowledge, the
transfer of tacit knowledge requires close interaction and the buildup
of shared understanding and trust among them.

Main methods for the acquisition and accumulation: Explicit
knowledge can be generated through logical deduction and acquired
through practical experience in the relevant context. In contrast, tacit
knowledge can only be acquired through practical experience in the
relevant context.

Potential of aggregation and modes of appropriation: Explicit
knowledge can be aggregated at a single location, stored in objective
forms and appropriated without the participation of the knowing subject.
Tacit knowledge in contrast, is personal contextual. It is
distributive, and cannot easily be aggregated. The realization of its
full potential requires the close involvement and cooperation of the
knowing subject.

The process of transforming tacit knowledge into explicit or
specifiable knowledge is known as codification, articulation, or
specification. The tacit aspects of knowledge are those that cannot be
codified, but can only be transmitted via training or gained through
personal experience.

Transmission models for tacit knowledge

A chief practice of technological development is the codification of
tacit knowledge into explicit programmed operations so that processes
previously requiring skilled employees can be automated for greater
efficiency and consistency at lower cost. Such codification involves
mechanically replicating the performance of persons who possess relevant
tacit knowledge; in doing so, however, the ability of the skilled
practitioner to innovate and adapt to unforeseen circumstances based on
the tacit "feel" of the situation is often lost. The technical remedy is
to attempt to substitute brute-force methods capitalizing on the
computing power of a system, such as those that enable a supercomputer
programmed to "play" chess against a grandmaster whose tacit knowledge
of the game is broad and deep.
The conflicts demonstrated in the previous two paragraphs are
reflected in Ikujiro Nonaka's model of organizational knowledge
creation, in which he proposes that tacit knowledge can be converted to
explicit knowledge. In that model tacit knowledge is presented variously
as uncodifiable ("tacit aspects of knowledge are those that cannot be
codified") and codifiable ("transforming tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge is known as codification"). This ambiguity is common in the
knowledge management literature.
Nonaka's view may be contrasted with Polanyi's original view of
"tacit knowing." Polanyi believed that while declarative knowledge may
be needed for acquiring skills, it is unnecessary for using those skills
once the novice becomes an expert. And indeed, it does seem to be the
case that, as Polanyi argued, when we acquire a skill we acquire a
corresponding understanding that defies articulation [12]

Examples

One of the most convincing examples of tacit knowledge is facial
recognition. ‘‘We know a person’s face, and can recognize it among a
thousand, indeed a million. Yet we usually cannot tell how we recognize a
face we know, so most of this cannot be put into words.’’. When you see
a face you are not conscious about your knowledge of the individual
features (eye, nose, mouth), but you see and recognize the face as a
whole [13]

Another example of tacit knowledge is the notion of language
itself—it is not possible to learn a language just by being taught the
rules of grammar—a native speaker picks it up at a young age almost
entirely unaware of the formal grammar which they may be taught later.
Other examples are how to ride a bike, how tight to make a bandage, or
knowing whether a senior surgeon feels an intern may be ready to learn
the intricacies of surgery; this can only be learned through personal
experimentation.

Collins showed [14]
that a particular laser (The ppTEA laser) was designed in America and
the idea, with specific assistance from the designers, was gradually
propagated to various other universities world-wide. However, in the
early days, even when specific instructions were sent, other labs failed
to replicate the laser, it only being made to work in each case
following a visit to or from the originating lab or very close contact
and dialogue. It became clear that while the originators could clearly
make the laser work, they did not know exactly what it was that they
were doing to make it work, and so could not articulate or specify it by
means of monologue articles and specifications. But a cooperative
process of dialogue enabled the tacit knowledge to be transferred.

Another example is the Bessemer steel process
— Bessemer sold a patent for his advanced steel making process and was
sued by the purchasers who couldn't get it to work. In the end Bessemer
set up his own steel company because he knew how to do it, even though
he could not convey it to his patent users. Bessemer's company became
one of the largest in the world and changed the face of steel making.[15]

As apprentices learn the craft of their masters through observation,
imitation, and practice, so do employees of a firm learn new skills
through on-the-job training. When Matsushita started developing its
automatic home bread-making machine in 1985, an early problem was how to
mechanize the dough-kneading process, a process that takes a master
baker years of practice to perfect. To learn this tacit knowledge, a
member of the software development team, Ikuko Tanaka, decided to
volunteer herself as an apprentice to the head baker of the Osaka
International Hotel, who was reputed to produce the area’s best bread.
After a period of imitation and practice, one day she observed that the
baker was not only stretching but also twisting the dough in a
particular fashion (“twisting stretch”), which turned out to be the
secret for making tasty bread. The Matsushita home bakery team drew
together eleven members from completely different specializations and
cultures: product planning, mechanical engineering, control systems, and
software development. The “twisting stretch” motion was finally
materialized in a prototype after a year of iterative experimentation by
the engineers and team members working closely together, combining
their explicit knowledge. For example, the engineers added ribs to the
inside of the dough case in order to hold the dough better as it is
being churned. Another team member suggested a method (later patented)
to add yeast at a later stage in the process, thereby preventing the
yeast from over-fermenting in high temperatures.[16]

Knowledge management

According to Parsaye, there are three major approaches to the capture of tacit knowledge from groups and individuals. They are:[17]

Interviewing experts.

Learning by being told.

Learning by observation.

Interviewing experts can be done in the form of structured interviewing or by recording organizational stories.
Structured interviewing of experts in a particular subject is the most
commonly used technique to capture pertinent, tacit knowledge. An
example of a structured interview would be an exit interview. Learning
by being told can be done by interviewing or by task analysis. Either
way, an expert teaches the novice the processes of a task. Task analysis
is the process of determining the actual task or policy by breaking it
down and analyzing what needs to be done to complete the task. Learning
by observation can be done by presenting the expert with a sample
problem, scenario, or case study and then observing the process used to solve the problem.[citation needed]
Some other techniques for capturing tacit knowledge are:[citation needed][original research?]

All of these approaches should be recorded in order to transfer the tacit knowledge into reusable explicit knowledge.
Professor Ikujiro Nonaka has proposed the SECI
(Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) model,
one of the most widely cited theories in knowledge management, to
present the spiraling knowledge processes of interaction between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995).

Chladni patterns show the geometry of the different types
of vibration of violin plates. This site has an introductory
explanation of modes of vibration and a library of photographs
of the Chladni patterns of the bellies and backplates of two
different violins (one mass-produced
and one hand-made). It also has
photographs of plates with regular
geometries which assist in understanding the violin modes.
For some related history, see Chladni's
law. For some Chladni patterns on metal plates, with sound
files, see Acoustics of bell plates.
To make your own Chladni patters, try this site.

General relativity contains solutions in which two distant black holes are
connected through the interior via a wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge. These
solutions can be interpreted as maximally entangled states of two black holes
that form a complex EPR pair. We suggest that similar bridges might be present
for more general entangled states.
In the case of entangled black holes one can formulate versions of the
AMPS(S) paradoxes and resolve them. This suggests possible resolutions of the
firewall paradoxes for more general situations.Cool horizons for entangled black holes Juan Maldacena, Leonard Susskind

One of the most enjoyable and inspiring physics papers I have read in recent years is this one by Mark Van Raamsdonk. Building on earlier observations by Maldacena and by Ryu and Takayanagi.
Van Raamsdonk proposed that quantum entanglement is the fundamental
ingredient underlying spacetime geometry. Since my first encounter with
this provocative paper, I have often mused that it might be a Good Thing
for someone to take Van Raamsdonk’s idea really seriously. Entanglement=Wormholes preskill

The basis of any experience has it's counter part in how we have
established the lines to which we place all experiencing on? You cannot
count backward to zero(what is before zero...ummmmmm nothing), so what
takes zero's place? It would be like asking what existed before this
universe, so fundamentally they looked at issues around the false vacuum
to the true. But cosmologically they call this universe "a box," and
anything outside of it not fundamental?

Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it. — Albert Einstein

Any measure then, serves to activate a counting to begin? So you
choose to be discrete. Some how you cannot distance yourself from any
operation as to say the location is other then a configuration space,
and that you are operating within it?

So the question is, when do you first become aware? What is considered
outside of time, if you think that time refers too, when counting
begins? So you are in your subjective states, whether these are real or
not remains to be seen, so how do you quantify this? Do you have a way of keeping time in the subjective world.

Abstract space(mathematics) are totally outside of time?

I guess it is sort of like asking what first cause is to imply. Yet, theoretical definition is to say that string theory pushes back time much further to such a beginning then Steven Weinberg's first three minutes. The act in itself is related to "microseconds" when pushing back perspective, and not Weinberg's minutes

So theoretically, you start counting when? The abstractness is contained
in the mathematical structure of the universe which has been chosen to
be perceived by observing in that abstract framework.

When you've chosen virtually reality, you have choose to model the
framework(subjective /objectively) as well? We use it to model abstract
language. Is that real?

So recap on use of measure of natural units then.

In
physics, natural units are physical units of measurement defined in
terms of universal physical constants in such a manner that some chosen
physical constants take on the numerical value of one when expressed in
terms of a particular set of natural units. Natural units are intended
to elegantly simplify particular algebraic expressions appearing in
physical law or to normalize some chosen physical quantities that are
properties of universal elementary particles and that may be reasonably
believed to be constant. However, what may be believed and forced to be
constant in one system of natural units can very well be allowed or even
assumed to vary in another natural unit system. Natural units are
natural because the origin of their definition comes only from
properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are
often, without qualification, called "natural units" but are only one
system of natural units among other systems. Planck units might be
considered unique in that the set of units are not based on properties
of any prototype, object, or particle but are based only on properties
of free space.Natural units

So we have effectively run into a problem.

TWO
UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws
are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle.
Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific
type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its
four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a
hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules
in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point
particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D
spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example,
the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the
physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case.
Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no
experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.

When you are looking out toward the universe you are looking for the reasons as to why the universe is doing what it is doing. What is happening in one place in terms of black hole production in the cosmos? Do these have implications, as in other cosmological sources as to imply, the universe is doing what it is doing?

Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Can the spooky world of quantum physics explain bird navigation, photosynthesis and even our delicate sense of smell? Clues are mounting that the rules governing the subatomic realm may play an unexpectedly pivotal role in the visible world. Join leading thinkers in the emerging field of quantum biology as they explore the hidden hand of quantum physics in everyday life and discuss how these insights may one day revolutionize thinking on everything from the energy crisis to quantum computers.See:Quantum Biology and the Hidden Nature of Nature World Science Festival

The inflationary theory of cosmology, an enduring theory about our universe and how it was formed, explains that just after the Big Bang, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion. This theory has been critical to understanding what’s going on in the cosmos today. But now, this long-held notion—which seems to suggest as-yet-unproven and perhaps unprovable features such as the multiverse—is under increasing attack. Through informed debate among architects of the inflationary theory and its prime competitors, this program will explore our best attempts to understand where we came from.
See: Multiverse: One Universe or Many

If our experience of time and space share similar neural correlates, it
begets a fundamental question: are space and time truly distinct in the
mind, or are they the product of a generalized neurocognitive system
that allows us to understand the world? See:Decoding Space and Time in the Brain

So the question here of genetics as a foundational basis for which the world takes on new meaning and content, is also to suggest that such an evolution is mind/brain changing. Right?

I have to wait until something appears that is missing so as to show that the current developments in our technologies(WMAP) are based on the spectrum of possibilities in the way we dive deeper into the reality.

Cosmologically, it is appealing that we seek to describe the universe optically in so many ways. This allows us to look deeper into the cosmos then we did before. This is a established trade route then with which to accept a sensory derivation of the cosmos. This would have intermingled with the process genetically disposed so as to imbue our sight of. It becomes neurologically appealing as insight is generated?

B-modes retain
their special nature as manifest in the fact that they can possess a
handedness that distinguishes left from right. For example here are two
polarization fields with the same structure but in the E-mode on the
left and the B-mode on the right:

So I am suggesting that such an evolution and development of consciousness would be to accept that the depth of our seeing is to go much further if we penetrate the cosmos in ways that we have not considered before. Examples already in progress are inherent in how we look at our Sun in terms of the Heliophysics that has been established so as to see expected cosmos rays plummeting to earth and spraying our planet.This view already insights a neurological function of space?

If you sprinkle fine sand uniformly over a drumhead and then make it
vibrate, the grains of sand will collect in characteristic spots and
figures, called Chladni patterns. These patterns reveal much information
about the size and the shape of the drum and the elasticity of its
membrane. In particular, the distribution of spots depends not only on
the way the drum vibrated initially but also on the global shape of the
drum, because the waves will be reflected differently according to
whether the edge of the drumhead is a circle, an ellipse, a square, or
some other shape.

In cosmology, the early Universe was crossed by
real acoustic waves generated soon after Big Bang. Such vibrations left
their imprints 300 000 years later as tiny density fluctuations in the
primordial plasma. Hot and cold spots in the present-day 2.7 K CMB
radiation reveal those density fluctuations. Thus the CMB temperature
fluctuations look like Chaldni patterns resulting from a complicated
three-dimensional drumhead that.

Sunday, June 02, 2013

Albert Einstein Professor in Science, Departments of Physics and Astrophysical...

Quasi-elegance....As
a young student first reading Weyl's book, crystallography seemed like
the "ideal" of what one should be aiming for in science: elegant
mathematics that provides a complete understanding of all
physical possibilities. Ironically, many years later, I played a role
in showing that my "ideal" was seriously flawed. In 1984, Dan Shechtman,
Ilan Blech, Denis Gratias and John Cahn reported the discovery of a
puzzling manmade alloy of aluminumand manganese with icosahedral
symmetry. Icosahedral symmetry, with its six five-fold symmetry axes, is
the most famous forbidden crystal symmetry. As luck would have it, Dov
Levine (Technion) and I had been developing a hypothetical idea of a
new form of solid that we dubbed quasicrystals, short for quasiperiodic crystals. (A quasiperiodic
atomic arrangement means the atomic positions can be described by a
sum of oscillatory functions whose frequencies have an irrational
ratio.) We were inspired by a two-dimensional tiling invented by Sir
Roger Penrose known as the Penrose tiling, comprised of two tiles
arranged in a five-fold symmetric pattern. We showed that quasicrystals
could exist in three dimensions and were not subject to the rules of
crystallography. In fact, they could have any of the symmetries
forbidden to crystals. Furthermore, we showed that the diffraction
patterns predicted for icosahedral quasicrystals matched the Shechtman
et al. observations. Since 1984, quasicrystals with other forbidden
symmetries have been synthesized in the laboratory. The 2011 Nobel Prize
in Chemistry was awarded to Dan Shechtman for his experimental
breakthrough that changed our thinking about possible forms of matter.
More recently, colleagues and I have found evidence that quasicrystals
may have been among the first minerals to have formed in the solar
system.

The crystallography I first encountered in Weyl's book, thought to
be complete and immutable, turned out to be woefully incomplete,
missing literally an uncountable number of possible symmetries for
matter. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned: While elegance and
simplicity are often useful criteria for judging theories, they can
sometimes mislead us into thinking we are right, when we are actually
infinitely wrong. See:2012 : WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE DEEP, ELEGANT, OR BEAUTIFUL EXPLANATION?

Working out what happened in the moments after the Big Bang is difficult. Scientists can come up with theories, but in the end they are useful only if they can be tested. Nobel prizewinner Robert Laughlin is passionate about experiments. He challenges the students in this film, and laureate David Gross, to come up with ways to test our big ideas about the Universe. The two laureates make a bet. Watch the film to find out more and to decide who wins.See:Betting on the cosmos - with David Gross and Robert Laughlin

Saturday, June 01, 2013

IN their figure 2. Hyperbolic space, and their comparative relation to
the M.C.Escher's Circle Limit woodcut, Klebanov and Maldacena write, " but
we have replaced Escher's interlocking fish with cows to remind readers
of the physics joke about the spherical cow as an idealization of a
real one. In anti-de Sitter/conformal theory correspondence, theorists
have really found a hyperbolic cow."

Does Planck 2013 Data hurt the continuance of geometrical underpinnings?

The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide
spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single
scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important,
though, is that all the simplest inflaton models are disfavored by the data
while the surviving models -- namely, those with plateau-like potentials -- are
problematic. We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to
three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem
and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty
which we call the inflationary "unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on
problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by
recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all
the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious
difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. Forthcoming
searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.See: Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013